Do we? Does a defender impose his "values" on an attacker by defending against the attack? Isn't that an argument from moral equivalence?
If you can see a moral difference between aggression and defense, then your forumula is too simple because it leaves out the most important bit.
An aggressor is trying to impose his values on his victim, theft, murder, whatever. The victim fights back and imposes his own value, self-survival, against the attacker's wishes.
According to you, these are moral equivalents -- both imposition of values.
But anyone else can see that it matters which one is acting in self-defense and which one is acting as aggressor.
Libertarianism is about acts in self-defense. Big government is about acts of aggression in pursuit of social engineering.
Concerning the question of imposing values: Should the majority impose its values on the minority?
Yes. When the values of the minority conflict real strongly with the values of the majority, the majority will always prevail.
A small community may enjoy eating dogs. It's acceptable in Southeast Asia. But here, it is seen as cruel and repellant. Not just lost pets, but even stray dogs, unwanted dogs. They'd be fined or arrested for cruelty.
Should we be tolerant and allow Satanism, where children are sexually abused, ritually-scarred, animals offered in sacrifice?
What if someone wants to be an ancient Aztec? He embraces the religion of Montezuma, and offers human sacrifice. "Who are we to violate their right to freedom of religion?"
No society has total freedom, no restrictions whatsoever. Total freedom on the personal level is self-destructive. The same for society.
So people get riled at the mention of social controls. Yet, people do it all the time. Values are imposed by ourselves on others, always. It's not a question of whether we should, but: Which values? We're going to force values on each other. The question is: What values will prevail?
Traditional values should be accepted. They work really well. They were established by religion. If this is forcing religion on people, then so be it. If not, the results are disastrous.
For the past 20 to 25 years, they were saying: "Do what you want to. If it feels good, do it. Anything goes." Before, it was widely agreed what morality was. The world was fairly free of self-inflicted diseases. It seemed risk-free, retribution-free, death-free. This was because their parents lived moral lives, their grandparents lived faithful lives. Now, they DUMP the social controls which helped them, which protected them, which preserved them, which nourished them. Catastrophe results!
If we claim to be kind, or compassionate, yet sit back and watch people do things which will bring about suffering and death: it's a travesty, an hypocrisy. To uphold morality: it's a kindness, it's a compassion, motivated not from power, to dictate beliefs and morality. It's similar to the abortion debate, where the people horrified at babies getting killed are labeled: "Right wing nuts," "Extremists," "Religious fascists," "Hateful."
It's not from mean-spiritedness, but from compassion: You don't want to see all these babies murdered. You don't want to see all these kids getting diseases. You don't want to see all the foolish messages: "Go out and be promiscuous." "Do your own thing." "Anything goes." A girl takes it to heart, and, BOOM! a teenaged mother, emotionally-unequipped for motherhood, or, BOOM! suddenly and permanently sterile, where she can never have children, just as she was half-developed as an adult.
We see the messages: "Follow behavior patterns that bring suffering, and death."
There was Jesus, entering the Holy Temple, Him, filled with love, compassion, long-suffering, forgiveness. He saw the money-changers and drove them out, with whip in hand. Why did He do that? Jesus acted out of love for God. If a nasty remark is made, directed to a family member, against someone you love, it is natural to feel anger, to be hurt by it. It is a combination of hurt and anger, and the desire to lash out, because someone you love has been hurt. It is a natural reaction to cruelty. What Jesus did, going into the Temple, to adore the Father, seeing the people keeping others from worshipping, by burdening them, by profiting from it, He threw them out, bodily threw them out.
The Prophets said words of anger, resounding words, still strong today: "You brood of vipers! You evildoers!" Not that they were angry people, but that they were hurt, hurt at the cruelty of their day, hurt because GOD is hurt. They had seen His love, felt His love living inside them. Their words are coming from this hurt, that a loving, benevolent God is being treated wrongly by His creatures.
If a child is kidnapped and killed, if a dealer sells drugs near a school, people are rightly angered by it, that someone they love is being hurt. "This is wrong. It makes us mad to see you acting that way."